Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1.  @TheRoxinatoR  No, you don't know. That's clear.
    1
  2.  @TheRoxinatoR  The case in Maine was not before a court.
    1
  3. @roxinator69  Reality is not legal documents. Reality is your parroting of talking heads. Although you do have a point: the talking heads are richly paid. Court documents and other legal papers are available for free download, but then, on top of everything, they must be read. Okay . . . That's decisive. I withdraw my objection.
    1
  4. @roxinator69  If Trump is so dangerous, why didn't the DNC decide after the November 2016 election to get serious and beat him decisively? They are not even sure they can do it this year. This doesn't worry you? It should. As the world gets more dangerous and the dollar is under threat, we have no one marginally competent, much less statesmanlike, to assume the presidency.
    1
  5.  @TheRoxinatoR  THE CASE IN MAINE WAS NOT BEFORE A COURT. Go look it up.
    1
  6. @roxinator69  The reality is this: we have a Supreme Court full of right-wing ideologues. If the Supreme Court is called upon to rule, it could decide the US President is NOT an officer of the state, so that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment never applies to the presidency, no matter what a president may do. This would not be good, OBVIOUSLY. It is what the Colorado trial court deduced, so it is not farfetched at all. Other possibilities are less bad, but some are quite bad. The risk isn't worth it. I hope that if they rule, it will be on narrow grounds, without foreclosing future suits against a president on Section 3 grounds. We might need Section 3 again soon.
    1
  7.  @ariellaurent5422  A true threat to safety requires police, not bureaucracy. I thought we decided that during the flood of accusations of SA. We revisit that, now? Why?
    1
  8. @ariellaurent5422  I don't mean that as a talking point. Real danger requires police response and community meetings with police, to deal with the matter and to coordinate campus and city police. You don't agree?
    1
  9. I remember decades of anti-Roe v. Wade, pro-life protests before the Supreme Court. You don't?
    1
  10. He proved nothing at all. The key to the law is the word "near." It is nowhere defined by either of them.
    1
  11.  @KJWEBMEDIA  The First Amendment preempts any law to the contrary. The perimeter around a home -- anyone's home -- is larger, and should be, than around the Supreme Court, but it does not extend to infinity. Nor is it based on intent. All the pro-life demonstrators intended to make their views known to the Justices, and had every right to. Too bad we can't handle rights any more.
    1
  12.  @KJWEBMEDIA  The statute he quoted on the poster board says "a building housing a court of the United States." Pause the video and read the whole thing.
    1
  13.  @KJWEBMEDIA  Why is everyone stupid, suddenly? What a luxury.
    1
  14. Valley girl?
    1
  15. Wrong. He talked about a letter. What did the letter say? Did it contain evidence that student organizations were fronts for terrorist cells or were terrorist sympathizers? Or is a letter all you need, with the right accusations? I thought we were against cancel culture.
    1
  16.  @denisekoltys3019  You don't know that he tried to run over a cop. You just repeat that.
    1
  17.  @denisekoltys3019  Fix your spelling.
    1
  18.  @denisekoltys3019  The officer already apologized, i.e., confessed.
    1
  19.  @jenblankenship5350  Obvious what this spiel is about. Of course that's his plan.
    1
  20. You're in skool? 😂😂😂😂
    1
  21. @markasbury1084  Show me where in the United States that happened. You think you're Elizabeth Eckford of Little Rock?
    1
  22.  @stevenschuyler9527  A joke.
    1
  23.  @stevenschuyler9527  I think it suits the grammatical structure of the OP.
    1
  24. @koppsr  He very clearly stated that he was advised by counsel not to comment on pending matters. This isn't Facebook Gossip Hour, this is real. And Stefanik knows it.
    1
  25.  @sketchartist1964  They are asking for fundraising purposes. Of course they know that his answer is true. This is a performance, for 💰, to finance the upcoming election. How does anyone STILL get taken in?? Wow, just wow. Check on how much they've pulled in since they started these pointless hearings.
    1
  26. @sketchartist1964  My clear, cogent, and unequivocal reply is nowhere to be found now. I wonder why that is? Of course he's telling the truth and of course they know he is.
    1
  27.  @sketchartist1964  Don't you find it funny that clear statements of fact or law get disappeared, but trash talk is amplified? Huh. Odd.
    1
  28. @sketchartist1964  No he is not. He stood up to Congress better than any of the Ivy League presidents did. He is not supposed to comment on pending matters, whether they be pending in administrative hearings or in litigation. Because he represents state schools, he is bound by Due Process. Blabbing could end up costing the public tax money.
    1
  29.  @sketchartist1964  I hope you can see the above.
    1
  30.  @sketchartist1964  It's not a matter of how it sounds. Harvard has a private foundation to cover all costs of lawsuits. Public schools have property taxes. You know that! Look at your bill.
    1
  31. Yeah. Buy only Made in America. Oops, too late.
    1
  32. And to think they're not vaccinated, or under surveillance for terrorism. Aren't we?
    1
  33. Let's not forget how often gender is no longer obvious. 😮
    1
  34. Not the case. It's a multi-pronged standard.
    1
  35. The existence of a treatment, plus the fact that fully vaccinated people do still contract and spread COVID, undercuts vaccine mandates.
    1
  36. Constitutionality isn't an issue. Harvard is a private university, and its admissions are protected by First Amendment freedom of association. Their problem is that they accept a ton of federal funding, which means their admissions can be scrutinized. A limited use of race in admissions has been legal up until now, based on a long line of Supreme Court cases. The other side wants that precedent overruled and to have all use of race declared illegal for any university accepting government funds. The briefs are really interesting. The Court always publishes them.
    1
  37. In prison, huh? Did anyone go to jail for banning Henry Miller, or Hustler magazine, or the musical Hair? How about for refusing to register the marriage of an interracial couple? Or running a segregated pizza parlor? 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  38.  @laertesindeed  All right, so you will try to string together words you may not understand to console yourself. Please do. Your feelings about criminal law have nothing to do with reality, but they are your feelings. No argument there.
    1
  39.  @laertesindeed  The issue in this case concerning whether Harvard's admissions policy discriminates based on race has nothing to do with the Constitution. The case is based on federal statutes, and the fact that Harvard takes federal money every year.
    1
  40.  @laertesindeed  You really have something wrong with you -- the only question is how much. In any case, enough that I wouldn't want you prowling around my house or garage. Blocked. Get a good book on writing. You want to write well, but can't yet. Study, and you will improve. Make that your resolution.
    1
  41. I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones, who truly distinguished themselves in uniform? That is one way to increase black enrollment.
    1
  42. What was the reason for firing the Inspectors General? The President's nominees were all just confirmed by the Senate to head the various agencies and departments. Perhaps it would make sense to seek out their views on how to improve efficiency and cut costs? Why do you think Patel and Gabbard immediately told their employees not to respond? Because they want to hide fraud?
    1
  43. If the price is right they would.
    1
  44.  @republicansthatdidntvotefo1605  I am chagrined that people are this quick to give up rights -- one obviously grandstanding congresswoman making her career with outrage p**n is enough. I'm starting to wonder how we ever got them in the first place. Look up RAV v. City of St. Paul. RAV is a case where a St. Paul ordinance banning cross burning, swastikas and similar symbols was struck down as unconstitutional. A liberal decision? No, a Scalia opinion, with concurrences coming to the same conclusion for different reasons, from Justices who didn't like his approach but agreed the ban was unconstitutional.
    1
  45.  @acloserlook5823  Absolutely it is. But if you see how those cases were written, then you can figure out why they turned out the way they did at the time they were decided. The briefs in this case are actually fascinating and are worth the time to read. I was surprised that the petitioners, representing Asian students, were so direct in their request that those cases be overturned. This isn't an easy case, and everyone called in their top guns for a reason. (EDIT: "at" changed to "that")
    1
  46. Or Musk sent an intermediary or . . .
    1
  47.  @brighteyes6559  On all matters of law, it is correct that the Supreme Court defers to no other court. On matters of creating a factual record, the district court's findings of fact are presumed to be accurate, though not beyond scrutiny, obviously.
    1
  48.  @pensiveintrovert4318  I literally laughed out loud, very loud. Now I can go to bed happy. That was wonderful.
    1
  49.  @bubbagump6625  Have you seen a recent copy of that "standardized test?" It makes me wonder who the test makers are, and how they determine what the test should consist in.
    1
  50.  @donaldkasper8346  You are telling me they CAUGHT all the burglars?? In my city, they don't catch the murderers.
    1